A very intelligent canine. I've gone to court more than Michelle Bachmann, Harriet Miers, and most US Law School professors ever have. I am ghost written by my human companion. I actually live in the Second largest English speaking city at the time of the War for American Independence. These are my opinions and I don't care if you read this. I don't really want to hear from you--unless you agree with me or can offer intelligent and constructive comments. And I refuse to sell out (no ads here).

17 January 2010

That's Laci THE dog

Proof that gun cretins aren't that bright, one of them made the comment that "Laci owns a dog" amongst other statements that he had no fucking idea what I have written.

First off: That's Laci THEdog. And as the blurb at the tops says:

A very intelligent canine. I've gone to court more than Harriet Miers and most US Law School professors ever have. I am ghost written by my human companion.

The idiot also missed the "about me" bit on the right side of the blog. That's a DOG, fuckwit. Has that passed through your thick skull yet?

Laci IS THE Dog, NOT the human who writes this blog.

The bit about the dog going to court is not a joke. I've posted this picture of her in the Court hallway here before. The bit about Harriet Miers came from a friend who pointed out that my dog had been to court more than Miers ever had. Likewise, there are quite a few US law profs who aren't even admitted to any form of State Bar, let alone practised law, which means that Laci has been in court more than they have as well.

The last bit is scary since half the lawyers in the world are located in the US. I find it incredibly frightening that all one needs to do is pass a State bar and they let you loose on the unsuspecting public. Every other jurisdiction requires some form of apprenticeship before finally letting one loose in a courtroom.

The human who actually writes this blog has completed a pupilage in the UK. Whilst one serious hurdle to practise in Great Britain had been overcome. There is a second hurdle to practise: admission to chambers, which is even harder to surpass.

Additionally, this guncretin also shows a huge lack of comprehension of my position regarding DC v. Heller. There is a fairly good summary of that position in my post For SouthernFemaleLawyer. I did add in my response to this moron that one does not amend the Constitution through the judiciary, which Heller did.

Again, there are more than enough articles written by myself and others that point out this fact. Scalia used the magic words "individual right" which was more than enough to keep the booboisie happy. They now parrot the phrase the Second Amendment is an "individual right" with no understanding of scope of that right.

I didn't say Scalia was an idiot. I have said he was ignorant, which has nothing to do with intelligence. One can be a genius, yet be ignorant. Gun cretins are quite ignorant, which is compounded by the fact that they are ignorant of their ignorance.

I can say that I find Scalia intellectually dishonest as all get out to have wanted to attribute the Heller decision to himself as it pretty much ignores what he claims is his judicial philosophy. As I said, Heller is more "original" than "originalist".

Although, it has been said that Scalia misunderstands the nature of the US legal system and finds it is a civil law system rather than a common law one in his book A Matter of Interpretation. This misunderstanding may form the foundation of his willingness to judicially amend the Constitution rather than go through the proper constitutional process.

Since Heller now stands for the proposition that stare decisis and precedent aren't worth the paper decisions are printed upon, perhaps we can ignore that decision. In fact, isn't there a challenge that it was an unconstitutional act of Judicially amending the constitution to change the language of the Second Amendment? Or to once again quote the man himself:

If the courts are free to write the Constitution anew, they will write it the way the majority wants; the appointment and confirmation process will see to that. This, of course, is the end of the Bill of Rights, whose meaning will be committed to the very body it was meant to protect against: the majority. Antonin Scalia, Vigilante Justices: The Dying Constitution